Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 110.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on July 17, 2015, 03:59:25 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 17, 2015, 03:51:32 PM

Quote from: Odalv on July 17, 2015, 03:28:18 PM

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

that is evidence that miners can indeed control spam or bloated blocks that attempt to attack the network.

lift the limit entirely.

This is also evidence that we are currently using 20% of network capacity. (and 80% of load was only temporary spamming)

first off, my argument that miners can control spam and bloated blocks trumps your argument.

second, it's clear that the spamming started at about 50% of full blocks:

third, i agree that there is spamming going on by attackers wanting to disrupt user growth, imo. the fact that the network responded well to weeks of full blocks w/o breaking down is yet again an argument for bigger blocks; we're perfectly capable of handling them

fourth, b/c the network is perfectly capable of handling the extra load, idealistically, tx's should be kept on MC to feed miners long term as we transition away from block rewards to fee based security. this is needed for maximum decentralization and security.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: NewLiberty on July 17, 2015, 03:51:08 PM

I see your confusion. You've confused propagation with verification.

Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.

Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify. Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.

If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning. Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).

does your above argument depend on the existence of the relay network or not?

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 17, 2015, 03:51:32 PM

Quote from: Odalv on July 17, 2015, 03:28:18 PM

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

that is evidence that miners can indeed control spam or bloated blocks that attempt to attack the network.

lift the limit entirely.

This is also evidence that we are currently using 20% of network capacity. (and 80% of load was only temporary spamming)

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: Odalv on July 17, 2015, 03:28:18 PM

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

Just the usual suspects.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Odalv on July 17, 2015, 03:28:18 PM

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

that is evidence that miners can indeed control spam or bloated blocks that attempt to attack the network.

lift the limit entirely.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

I see your confusion. You've confused propagation with verification.

Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.

Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify. Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.

If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning. Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: NewLiberty on July 17, 2015, 01:54:44 PM

Quote from: solex on July 17, 2015, 01:02:40 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 11:23:45 PM

solex, where do you go to get your mempool size info? there seems to be discrepancies btwn sources.

Lately I am using tradeblock as their site is fast and informative. https://tradeblock.com/blockchain
For some reason the leadership at blockchain.info has become rudderless and their site is often not keeping up and development there seems static. My impression anyway.

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 11:18:18 PM

you're referring to the 1MB single tx block that f2pool constructed as a non std tx to help reduce the UTXO set?

why was that a bad thing? it was a one off to help consolidate all that dust and required that a miner self construct this type of block and transmit it. that wouldn't be a repeatable, viable attack to inflict on the network by a rogue miner looking to gain an advantage over other miners for the following reasons:

1. constructing an 8MB bloat block while the rest of the network is making 1MB blocks runs the severe risk of orphaning
2. if the pool consists mainly of hashers, they would react by redirecting their hash away from the attacking pool to preserve the network
3. if it was coming out of China from a large miner, that miner runs even more risk of orphaning due to the GFC.
4. other miners receiving such a bloat block could react defensively by switching to mining a 0 tx block during the validation process.
5. game theory suggests a miner wouldn't even begin to do this attack for preservation of BTC value and his hardware investment.

Yes. The block which reduced the utxo set. That was the good part (though Greg posted on irc that it could have been constructed much more efficiently). Anyway, the bad part is that validation took 25 secs (because of all the inputs). Bitcoin full nodes have no way at present to look at a block and decide to orphan it in advance because it is a "bloat block" that will take too long to validate, they will all chug through the block first.You are probably right bloat blocks would not propagate fast enough and get orphaned.

I think something is being missed here. The block is not a 'bloat block' more of a 'bloat transaction'.
It will propagate just as fast as the other blocks, the size is not the issue so much as the construction.

This issue arises when larger blocks are permitted. Though even at 1mb block construction can be made to be disadvantageous to other miners in order to increase the validation time.

the above 2 statements appear to be inconsistent. the bloat tx does indeed take longer to propagate; 25 sec:

http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522

Rusty got a bit overzealous in his pessimism as was pointed out in the comments by Dusty, who may be the Dusty who pops in here every once in a while:

Dusty | July 9, 2015 at 11:28 pm

> “If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not.”

In fact not: if a block takes too long to be verified nobody builds on it and your block get orphaned (miners build only on blocks they’ve verified… or at least they should).

So you lose the time you hashed and your reward: next time you’ll probably learn the lesson and create a smaller block

Quote

I am not pretending that there is no resolution to this, only that there is not yet one implemented. It is more important to develop in order rather than rush in a fix to 1mb block limits for which we are not ready, or one which is poorly designed.

i wonder if that is true. it's possible that everything exists in the protocol now along with the game theory, as it stands, to encourage miners not to bloat blocks for the fear of orphaning and preservation of network value.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: solex on July 17, 2015, 01:02:40 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 11:23:45 PM

solex, where do you go to get your mempool size info? there seems to be discrepancies btwn sources.

Lately I am using tradeblock as their site is fast and informative. https://tradeblock.com/blockchain
For some reason the leadership at blockchain.info has become rudderless and their site is often not keeping up and development there seems static. My impression anyway.

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 11:18:18 PM

you're referring to the 1MB single tx block that f2pool constructed as a non std tx to help reduce the UTXO set?

why was that a bad thing? it was a one off to help consolidate all that dust and required that a miner self construct this type of block and transmit it. that wouldn't be a repeatable, viable attack to inflict on the network by a rogue miner looking to gain an advantage over other miners for the following reasons:

1. constructing an 8MB bloat block while the rest of the network is making 1MB blocks runs the severe risk of orphaning
2. if the pool consists mainly of hashers, they would react by redirecting their hash away from the attacking pool to preserve the network
3. if it was coming out of China from a large miner, that miner runs even more risk of orphaning due to the GFC.
4. other miners receiving such a bloat block could react defensively by switching to mining a 0 tx block during the validation process.
5. game theory suggests a miner wouldn't even begin to do this attack for preservation of BTC value and his hardware investment.

Yes. The block which reduced the utxo set. That was the good part (though Greg posted on irc that it could have been constructed much more efficiently). Anyway, the bad part is that validation took 25 secs (because of all the inputs). Bitcoin full nodes have no way at present to look at a block and decide to orphan it in advance because it is a "bloat block" that will take too long to validate, they will all chug through the block first.You are probably right bloat blocks would not propagate fast enough and get orphaned.

I think something is being missed here. The block is not a 'bloat block' more of a 'bloat transaction'.
It will propagate just as fast as the other blocks, the size is not the issue so much as the construction.

This issue arises when larger blocks are permitted. Though even at 1mb block construction can be made to be disadvantageous to other miners in order to increase the validation time.

I am not pretending that there is no resolution to this, only that there is not yet one implemented. It is more important to develop in order rather than rush in a fix to 1mb block limits for which we are not ready, or one which is poorly designed.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Pruden on July 17, 2015, 12:18:48 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 17, 2015, 10:58:50 AM

you can't say stocks don't give you a chance to get out. get ready for the next roll:

Indeed, yesterday there were hundreds New-52-week-Lows while big indexes had a great day and VIX went down to 12... The kind of short opportunity you get every few months.

glad to see you see the light.

and it makes sense, if you believe TPTB intervene in the markets to manipulate upwards. they buy the $DJI, the most easily manipulable and high profile index to sway public opinion.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: Adrian-x on July 17, 2015, 12:50:52 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on July 17, 2015, 12:08:36 PM

Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)

another productive member of society dispersers into the wild after realizing bitcoin profit, while he doesn't buy coffee with Bitcoin ( unlike Adam Back who advocates bitcoin should be good for coffee) it's unclear if he left the proverbial note: "Who is John Galt?" before embarking.

Wink

I agree that 'bitcoin should be good for coffee' with the caveat that it should be done (in cup-sized quantities) by use of a proxy. Exactly the type of thing that Blockstream seems to be working on in fact.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tvbcof on July 17, 2015, 12:08:36 PM

Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)

another productive member of society dispersers into the wild after realizing bitcoin profit, while he doesn't buy coffee with Bitcoin ( unlike Adam Back who advocates bitcoin should be good for coffee) it's unclear if he left the proverbial note: "Who is John Galt?" before embarking.

Wink

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: hdbuck on July 17, 2015, 10:40:07 AM

blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass

Distributed crypto-currency solutions have the potential to support 'the masses' no matter what their position in life by taking over certain functions of government when and organized and 'standard' government fails to serve the people.

Bitcoin will hopefully end up being a part of this process, but will fail and will in fact become part of the problem if it is subverted. The most likely way this subversion would happen would be that it is induced to outgrow itself and centralize. That concept is the source of my desire to see things 'go slow and with caution' with respect to the blocksize (and other things.)

In other words, it is absolutely the lesser of two evils to reserve the use of Bitcoin itself to those who are positioned to support it in a net-positive manner and plan on Bitcoin being a key element in a foundation upon which solutions which can realistically support disadvantaged people can be built.

To me, and I suspect many others, the 'restriction' in native used of Bitcoin via fees or anything else is pretty much exactly the opposite of 'screw the masses'. It's just that there is an added layer of complexity which might make it look that way to the casual observer.

Pruden

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Spanish Bitcoin trader

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 17, 2015, 10:58:50 AM

you can't say stocks don't give you a chance to get out. get ready for the next roll:

Indeed, yesterday there were hundreds New-52-week-Lows while big indexes had a great day and VIX went down to 12... The kind of short opportunity you get every few months.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 16, 2015, 07:06:16 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 04:54:25 PM

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and [email protected].

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge" No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."

Angry

FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better. Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)

I'd say your suspicion is likely correct. The part I was listening to when I pecked out this note was the guy explaining away the 'privatized gains/socialized losses' in the mainstream system as being associated with spreading the cost of theft and fraud around. The guy completely neglected what I suspect to be the major cost in mainstream-land which would be the cost of spying on and regulating individual users at the behest of the govt. There are good reasons to ignore this cost from these guys perspective because they expect to channel Bitcoin into an evolutionary path where it does this only better. Whenever I hear someone make a big deal about standard Libertarian principles but subtly leave out large and important blocks I get suspicious.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hdbuck on July 17, 2015, 10:40:07 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on July 17, 2015, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 16, 2015, 07:06:16 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 04:54:25 PM

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and [email protected].

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge" No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."

Angry

FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better. Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.

I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.

blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass

iCE called limiting block size "a sanity check/DOS regulator" you say it has nothing to do with increasing transactions ie DOS but more to do with transaction fees, (which are heavily subsidized) at this point in time.

So why do we need to "limit block size for now" in that case?

I don't see the mechanism that will make transaction fees sky rocket, the only one that will function in a free market is limiting block size.

The next question is why do you think that's a good idea?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

if financial elites like Krugman believe users/participants are the key to Metcalfe's Law and growing the internet, then Bitcoin should be employing strategies that attempt achieve the opposite of what he believes; grow it's users/participants:

The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law” — which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants — becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other!

By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.

https://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/krugman-is-clueless-about-bitcoin

how we gonna do that with Cripplecoin and Wuille's admission that SC's & LN don't scale Bitcoin?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: hdbuck on July 17, 2015, 10:40:07 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on July 17, 2015, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 16, 2015, 07:06:16 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 04:54:25 PM

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and [email protected].

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge" No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."

Angry

FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better. Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.

I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.

blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass

geezuz chr*st. the whole thrust of this thread is about Bitcoin replacing gold as a worldwide currency and as a new form of Money for the Ages.

for it to do that, it must replicate what gold has done for thousands of years. and that would be to function as a liquid money for everyone. yes, even those little African kids who are digging it up out of the ground as we speak. if it doesn't do that, then Bitcoin will forever be competing with physical gold and never get the chance to ascend to the throne, so to speak.

even if you disagree with that concept, wouldn't you agree that that would represent the ultimate in decentralization and security for Bitcoin if used at that level of the masses assuming it could be achieved technologically?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

you can't say stocks don't give you a chance to get out. get ready for the next roll:

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on July 17, 2015, 09:54:58 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 16, 2015, 07:06:16 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 16, 2015, 04:54:25 PM

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and [email protected].

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge" No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."

Angry

FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better. Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.

I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.

blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 110. (Read 2032266 times)